View More View Less
  • 1 Research Group VorTIC3, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, C/Tulipán s/n, 28933, Móstoles, Madrid, Spain; paloma.caceres@urjc.es; josemaria.cavero@urjc.es
Restricted access

Abstract

To the best of our knowledge, no works analyzing the participation of women as authors and editors in software engineering research publications currently exist. We have therefore followed a well-defined procedure in order to conduct an empirical study of female participation in 12 leading software engineering journals. We have analyzed the gender of the authors, editorial board members, associate editors and editors-in-chief over a two-year period in order to analyze, on the one hand, the rate of participation of women as authors and as editors in software engineering publications, and on the other, whether women are underrepresented. We have also analyzed the female distribution of authors and editors according to the geographical location of their institutions. This was done by first selecting the journals to be used as the population for data collection which then allowed us to identify female authors of papers and female editors, including the country in which their institutions are located. This eventually led to an analysis of female participation in order to understand representation rates. We analyzed 3,546 authors of 1,266 papers in 61 different countries, and 363 members of editorial boards in 30 different countries. The results of this analysis provide quantitative data concerning the participation of women as authors and editors in major software engineering journals including their distribution per country, in which important differences have been found. The results obtained were first used to compare the participation of women as authors and editors and were then used to carry out a series of simulations in order to be able to statistically confirm whether women are underrepresented. The study shows, amongst other things, that women are not underrepresented as editorial boards members and as editors-in-chief of the journals studied, although their representation as editors-in-chief is low.

  • ACM DL . (2012). ACM Digital Library. http://portal.acm.org/dl.cfm.

  • Camp, T. The incredible shrinking pipeline. Communications of the ACM 1997 40 10 103110 .

  • Ceci, SJ, Williams, WM. Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of the United States of America 2010 108 8 31573162 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DBLP. (2012). The DBLP computer science bibliography. http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/∼ley/db/index.html.

  • Gallivan, M. J., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2006). Examining the relationship between gender and the research productivity of IS faculty. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGMIS CPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research, (pp. 103113). New York, USA: ACM Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gharibyan, H. & Gunsaulus, S. (2006). Gender gap in computer science does not exist in one former Soviet republic: Results of a study. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM ITiCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, (pp. 222226). New York, USA: ACM Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Goyal, A. Women in computing: historical roles, the perpetual glass ceiling, and current opportunities. Annals of the History of Computing 1996 18 39 3642 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • IEEE Xplore. (2012). IEEE Xplore digital library. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.

  • JCR. (2011). Journal Citation Reports® of the ISI Web of Knowledge®.

  • Kennedy, BL, Lin, Y, Dickstein, LJ. Women on the editorial boards of major journals. Academic Medicine 2001 76 8 4951 .

  • Mauleón, E, Bordons, M. Productivity, impact and publication habits by gender in the area of materials science. Scientometrics 2006 66 1 199218 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Metz, I, Harzing, AW. Gender diversity in editorial boards of management journals. Academy of Management Learning and Education 2009 8 4 540557 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). http://webcaspar.nsf.gov/.

  • Othman, M, Latih, R. Women in computer science: No shortage here. Communications of the ACM 2006 49 6 111114 .

  • Papastergiou, M. Are computer science and information technology still masculine fields? High school students’ perceptions and career choices. Computers and Education 2008 51 2 594608 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Robinson, DH, McKay, DW, Katayama, AD, Fan, A. Are women underrepresented as authors and editors of educational psychology journals?. Contemporary Educational Psychology 1998 23:331343 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sax, LJ, Serra Hagedorn, L, Arredondo, M, Dicrisi, FA. Faculty research productivity: exploring the role of gender and family-related factors. Research in Higher Education 2002 43 4 423446 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Xie, Y, Shauman, KA. Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review 1998 63:847870 .

  • Impact Factor (2019): 2.867
  • Scimago Journal Rank (2019): 1.210
  • SJR Hirsch-Index (2019): 106
  • SJR Quartile Score (2019): Q1 Computer Science Apllications
  • SJR Quartile Score (2019): Q1 Library and Information Sciences
  • SJR Quartile Score (2019): Q1 Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Impact Factor (2018): 2.770
  • Scimago Journal Rank (2018): 1.113
  • SJR Hirsch-Index (2018): 95
  • SJR Quartile Score (2018): Q1 Library and Information Sciences
  • SJR Quartile Score (2018): Q1 Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

Manuscript submission: http://www.editorialmanager.com/scim/